"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 13:05:51 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Sam Wilson" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 09:04:10 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Sam Wilson" wrote in message
...
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 20:28:58 +0100, "Clive D.W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Charles
Ellson
writes
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick
or
Harry
to force their decisions on us.

In the case of the government, that's what we elected them to
do.

FSVO "We".

We, as a country, elected them. Being on the losing side sometimes
is
part of the system.

At least two other countries in the Union didn't elect them.

They may not have voted for them, but they did take part in the
process
of
electing them. (Alas!)

you had the democratic opportunity to change that

and democracy won

HTH

Democracy is a repeating process.

but not in a way where there are demands for a neverendum, so that they
eventually win from voter fatigue

Do you have some kind of legal or even scholarly reference for that
assertion?

try this as just one example

https://capx.co/a-fate-worse-than-qu...ds-neverendum/


Azeem Ibrahim, Executive Chairman of the Scotland Institute, a "think
tank" founded by an unholy LAB-LIB-CON alliance of Alistair Darling,
Jo Swinson and Jackson Carlaw.

You simply asked me for proof that the term was in (FSVO) general usage and
not something I had invented (at least that's how I interpreted your PP)

I've given you that

If you don't agree with the analysis, credibly refute it. Shooting the
messenger is never a valid debating position.

HTH

tim

On Tue, 9 Jun 2020 07:51:07 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 8 Jun 2020 13:05:51 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Sam Wilson" wrote in message
...
tim... wrote:


"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 7 Jun 2020 09:04:10 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Sam Wilson" wrote in message
...
Charles Ellson wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2020 20:28:58 +0100, "Clive D.W. Feather"
wrote:

In article , Charles
Ellson
writes
But it's ok for you, the government and every other Tom, Dick
or
Harry
to force their decisions on us.

In the case of the government, that's what we elected them to
do.

FSVO "We".

We, as a country, elected them. Being on the losing side sometimes
is
part of the system.

At least two other countries in the Union didn't elect them.

They may not have voted for them, but they did take part in the
process
of
electing them. (Alas!)

you had the democratic opportunity to change that

and democracy won

HTH

Democracy is a repeating process.

but not in a way where there are demands for a neverendum, so that they
eventually win from voter fatigue

Do you have some kind of legal or even scholarly reference for that
assertion?

try this as just one example

https://capx.co/a-fate-worse-than-qu...ds-neverendum/


Azeem Ibrahim, Executive Chairman of the Scotland Institute, a "think
tank" founded by an unholy LAB-LIB-CON alliance of Alistair Darling,
Jo Swinson and Jackson Carlaw.

You simply asked me for proof that the term was in (FSVO) general usage

It isn't (as your FSVO implies). Users (excluding media repetition)
are almost exclusively of a particular political bent and
representative of a sub-group rather than any party.

and not something I had invented

You are not to blame.

(at least that's how I interpreted your PP)

I've given you that

If you don't agree with the analysis, credibly refute it. Shooting the
messenger is never a valid debating position.

Nothing wrong with the messenger. Just adding info re the
originator(s) of the word.

HTH